Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market
Joyce E. Berg and
Thomas A. Rietz
International Journal of Forecasting, 2019, vol. 35, issue 1, 271-287
We study the forecast accuracy and efficiency of popular “binary” prediction markets. Such markets forecast probabilities for future states of the world (e.g., election winners) by paying off $0 or $1 depending on the realized state (e.g., who actually wins). To assess accuracy, forecast probabilities must be compared to realization frequencies, not individual realizations. We use Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) data to test efficiency against two alternative propositions from behavioral finance: the longshot bias and the overconfidence bias (which yield opposing predictions). No longshot bias appears in IEM markets. Nor does overconfidence influence prices at short horizons. However, overconfident traders may bias prices at intermediate horizons. While the markets are efficient at short horizons, non-market data indicate some intermediate-horizon inefficiency. We calculate Sharpe ratios for static trading strategies and document returns for dynamic trading strategies to assess the economic content of the inefficiencies.
Keywords: Prediction markets; Market efficiency; Longshot bias; Overconfidence (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:intfor:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:271-287
Access Statistics for this article
International Journal of Forecasting is currently edited by R. J. Hyndman
More articles in International Journal of Forecasting from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().